.
.
.
What [the DNC] is doing instead is to take maybe the only faction that is worse than Trump ... which is the deep state, with a history of atrocities ... and say that they ought to engage in almost a "soft coup"

Deep State was an idea that was formed in my lifetime as a poster on this board. So was American nationalism. You should therefore see a reflection of their genesis in my posts here. A quick recap on the evolution of the idea in my own personal history:

During Bill Clinton's tenure, I was almost completely consumed by our daughter's deteriorating neurological status, so my attention was focused elsewhere. Not SO distracted that I failed to notice Bill's pro-corporate economic and social policies (NAFTA, CAFTA, repeal of Glass Steagall, Commodity Futures Trading Modernization Act, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, DOMA, DADT, destruction of welfare as we know it, failure to enact meaningful health care reform, etc.) that I voted for him the second time- I didn't- but distracted that HIS destruction of Yugoslavia kind of blew by me.

GWB. The thing that stuck out for me ... aside from his even more pro-corporate stance and his destruction of the financial system ... was how little the invasion of Afghanistan made sense, and then how even more nonsensical was the invasion of Iraq. The invasions were CLEARLY carried out for specious reasons and propelled on a wave of media-hyped hysteria. There was no benefit to America at all, and the only motivation that I could think of that matched the expense was to support the petrodollar. Still, all in all, I thought the invasions were huge miscalculations.

But then, Obama made the same serial "errors" ... destabilizing Ukraine, destroying Libya, destroying Sudan, destablizing Yemen, and attempting to destroy Syria .... in most cases leaving giant smoking jihadist-filled ruins in their wake .... and I came to realize that these weren't serial errors on the part of the Administrations (all of them) but DELIBERATE POLICY. Combined with the realization that al Qaeda was just Saudi Arabia's proxy army it was a little hard to ignore that allowing Saudi Arabia free rein over the Middle East was part of the plan. As long as the Saudis and their jihadist army (1) didn't attack Israel and (2) kept to their petrodollar bargain and (3) kept the oil flowing our administration (or, the actors behind the administration) would be happy to fund the Saudi's jihadist proxies .... and even use them on occasion: Afghanistan, Chechnya, Libya, and Syria.

It was the apparent split behind some of Obama's policies and some of the State Department/CIA policies which pointed up the intransigent nature of these behind-the-scenes actors. CHRISISALL once posted - very early on in Obama's tenure - that he thought that the only explanation for Obama's failure to follow up on any of his policies is that he got a note on a napkin, about how vulnerable Malia and Sasha were to accidents, and that Obama should be careful what he did. And while I think the form of the threat was exaggerated, the thought has clearly stuck with me for more than seven years.

It has been clear to me for a while that there IS something called the "deep state". I sometimes imagine that part of the secret lore that Presidents pass on to each other is a warning about this deep state, and the oligarchs who direct it.

-------

In Trump's case, the deep state has had him in its sights since he became a SERIOUS contender for the Presidency, and not just a conveniently weak candidate to trounce.

The BUT RUSSIA! allegations can only be one of two things:

1) Either someone with access to highly classified information (which would have to be the CIA/NSA) is SELECTIVELY leaking classified information for political purposes ... which is treason or

2) These "unnamed sources" are making shit up whole cloth, and using their positions in intelligence to give their insinuations more weight than they deserve ... which is treason.

I have yet to see a discussion of Trump's assertion that the mainstream media is the enemy of the people.

Hearing that just made me squirm. But then I had to confront the idea, and I realized that it was true.

Similar to the thought that our serial Administrations didn't make repeated stupid military and foreign policy "mistakes", I came to realize that the press might get credit for one or two errors, but not a few dozen in the same kind of topic.

Every war that we engaged in since Vietnam has had the active collusion of the press, as it hyped one specious "reason" after another to press for one pointless provocation/incursion/invasion after another: Vietnam, Panama, Somalia, Grenada, Yugoslavia, Georgia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Sudan. And this whole BUT RUSSIA! hysteria has been both relentless and ridiculous, and only credulous people - which seems to be an awful lot - wouldn't see it for the propaganda that it is.

Judith Miller NYT was the (in)famous purveyor of every fatuous made-up story about Iraq. MOST of the MSM were engaged in serial misinformation about Syria, Ukraine, and Libya including the BBC and WSJ.

Where are America's interests in all of this? Who is looking out for our safety, our tax dollars, our future interests, and the lives of our soldiers?

Not the MSM! It seems to me that they have been actively colluding to deceive the American public, and that - yes - they really do deserve the title of "enemy of the people".

There’s an awful lot of loose ends here. Ends left loose by Trump. Every last one of these loose ends could be neatened up by Trump, today on President's day if Trump starts at 9 AM and doesn't take a nap or a long lunch, but Trump refuses to do the work. He won't releases his tax returns. He won't answer questions coherently. He won't declassify the recorded telephone calls intercepted between his staff and Russians. He won't do this and he won't do that and the fault is not the Deep State bringing him down. The fault is in Trump and what he won't do.

Quote:What we have instead are a lot of small, unanswered questions. Questions about Flynn’s behavior and the circumstances of his firing. Questions about the behavior of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and the circumstances of his firing. Questions about enigmatic remarks made by longtime Trump associate and veteran political operative Roger Stone. Questions about an obscure American businessman named Carter Page who maybe — or maybe not — worked for some time with the Trump campaign.

But there are also longstanding questions about the opaque financing of the Trump Organization, and about why its founder and owner has been so reluctant to engage in normal levels of financial disclosure. And most of all, there are questions about Trump’s highly unorthodox attitudes toward Russia, its government, and its leader, Vladimir Putin.

Here, in convenient list form, are the 30 small questions and three big ones about Donald Trump and Russia.

Thanks for hammering on this long enough for me to see it. I see a lot of cold war paranoia about Russia on this forum. Really, people. This is the NWO position, and always has been: Fear Russia. It's what led Napoleon I and III, Kaiser I and II and Hitler, drove the Congress of Vienna, League of Nations and UN, and the WTO. The World Trade Organization is conspiracy against trade with Russia, even with their tacit on again off again acceptance. It's like COCOM, the 80s export of computer tech to Russia international ban.

What Russia is: It's a major eurasian nation of 150 million people. It's Europe and Asia's Canada. It's posession of largely frozen northern landmass is more of natural resource supply than an empire. It's not about to expand and take over the globe.

Why all the fear mongering, when we've endorsed the expansion of Germany under the EU flag into an empire of 500 million with economic power to rival the United States, and a full on global puppet empire of China, which now controls US manufacturing, and is aiming to take of south and central Asia as well as Latin America, who has been using Long Beach Naval base in California to arm anti-US ragimes in South America, and we've not done or heard a thing about it.

If Trump has ties to Russia, so what? It's not a threat. Large international power groups are a threat, and they use external powers, like China and Germany on a globalist plan to essentially undermine national sovereignty and create an unelected neocon-communist elite that will be terrible for the environment, terrible for the population, terrible for the planet.

Once they have that there will be no way to remove it, because it will be unaccountable and possess an enormous array of military technology.

Comey's manipulation of the election - going public with an inconsequential detail of the Hillary investigation a week before the election, while releasing nothing about the investigations into Trump's Russia ties throughout the entire election cycle - seems like the clearest example of 'deep state' undermining democracy.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:

If Trump has ties to Russia, so what? It's not a threat. Large international power groups are a threat, and they use external powers, like China and Germany on a globalist plan to essentially undermine national sovereignty and create an unelected neocon-communist elite that will be terrible for the environment, terrible for the population, terrible for the planet.

What is the correct number of personal ties from outside the USA for the President? Probably zero. Obama got in trouble for having one tie outside, to Kenya. Trump has a few too many, which he refuses to clearly explain their nature. It is not like Trump has simple ties to siblings in Kenya. Or Russia.

Every time we turn around, there's something new, and unexplained, linking Trump to Russia. Just a few days ago, FBI Director James Comey briefed the Senate Intelligence committee about the ongoing investigation of Team Trump and its ties to Russia, and all the chatter afterward was about how the senators seemed kind of shaken by what they heard.

Who knows? Maybe it all turns out to be nothing. But there sure is a lot of smoke out there. It's hard to believe there isn't a fire too.

A week before Michael T. Flynn resigned as national security adviser, a sealed proposal was hand-delivered to his office, outlining a way for President Trump to lift sanctions against Russia.

Mr. Flynn is gone, having been caught lying about his own discussion of sanctions with the Russian ambassador. But the proposal, a peace plan for Ukraine and Russia, remains, along with those pushing it: Michael D. Cohen, the president’s personal lawyer, who delivered the document; Felix H. Sater, a business associate who helped Mr. Trump scout deals in Russia; and a Ukrainian lawmaker trying to rise in a political opposition movement shaped in part by Mr. Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort.

....[Mr. Cohen] said Mr. Sater had given him the written proposal in a sealed envelope. When Mr. Cohen met with Mr. Trump in the Oval Office in early February, he said, he left the proposal in Mr. Flynn’s office. Mr. Cohen said he was waiting for a response when Mr. Flynn was forced from his post. Now Mr. Cohen, Mr. Sater and Mr. Artemenko are hoping a new national security adviser will take up their cause. On Friday the president wrote on Twitter that he had four new candidates for the job.

The "Ukranian lawmaker" is a pro-Putin opponent of the current regime in Ukraine.

Sater is, um, a guy with an interesting background: "mafia linked," spent some time in prison, worked as an FBI informant, and spent several years as a close business associate of Donald J. Trump. Oh, and Sater was born in Russia and continues to have lots of contacts there.

And Cohen? Well, he's the guy who could actually get inside the White House and deliver the letter. You remember Michael Cohen, don't you? This jerk:

Meh. Obama had a lot stronger foreign ties than Kenya. As did Hillary. Meh to Trump too, but he has the lowest number of favors owed by anyone elected in my lifetime. Russia? Not that worried.

Edit.

So some people in Ukraine, a nation that has a 40% ethnic Russian minority, has some people who are pro-Russia. Color me surprised. Also, is it a reason to panic that a neighboring country has supporters? Would we panic if Canada was pro-American, or even pro-Mexican?

Also, speaking of, we live in a country with a 20% ethnic Latino minority, which has basically always been there ever since we conquered northern Mexico. That population is probably pro-Mexican. Is that a threat to national security? In order for there to be a parallel, the US latino populations slant toward pro-Mexico would have to be a threat to the national security of Russia.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Meh. Obama had a lot stronger foreign ties than Kenya. As did Hillary. Meh to Trump too, but he has the lowest number of favors owed by anyone elected in my lifetime. Russia? Not that worried.

Because Trump has not disclosed his tax returns, this means we have no real idea how his businesses operate or where they get their money. He might have multi-billion dollar ties to any country on Earth and we have no way of knowing which countries until he shows those tax returns. Trump loudly proclaims he has no deals in Russia, but the physical location of deals and buildings is not the issue. And Trump has not amassed the kind of sterling record of honesty that should make anyone inclined to simply take his word for it.

... What's more, the Washington Post reported Monday night that last month Sally Yates, then the acting attorney general, had informed the White House that Flynn discussed sanctions with Kislyak and that he could be susceptible to blackmail because he misled Pence about it. If it was the lie to Pence that sunk Flynn, why was he not fired at the end of January?

A better explanation here is that Flynn was just thrown under the bus. His tenure as national security adviser, the briefest in U.S. history, was rocky from the start. When Flynn was attacked in the media for his ties to Russia, he was not allowed by the White House to defend himself. Over the weekend, he was instructed not to speak to the press when he was in the fight for his political life. His staff was not even allowed to review the transcripts of his call to the Russian ambassador.

There is another component to this story as well -- as Trump himself just tweeted. It's very rare that reporters are ever told about government-monitored communications of U.S. citizens, let alone senior U.S. officials. The last story like this to hit Washington was in 2009 when Jeff Stein, then of CQ, reported on intercepted phone calls between a senior Aipac lobbyist and Jane Harman, who at the time was a Democratic member of Congress.

Normally intercepts of U.S. officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets. This is for good reason. Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. This is what police states do.

Quote:America's spies anonymously took down Michael Flynn. That is deeply worrying.

The United States is much better off without Michael Flynn serving as national security adviser. But no one should be cheering the way he was brought down.

The whole episode is evidence of the precipitous and ongoing collapse of America's democratic institutions — not a sign of their resiliency. Flynn's ouster was a soft coup (or political assassination) engineered by anonymous intelligence community bureaucrats. The results might be salutary, but this isn't the way a liberal democracy is supposed to function.

Unelected intelligence analysts work for the president, not the other way around. Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press — mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result. "Finally," they say, "someone took a stand to expose collusion between the Russians and a senior aide to the president!" It is indeed important that someone took such a stand. But it matters greatly who that someone is and how they take their stand. Members of the unelected, unaccountable intelligence community are not the right someone, especially when they target a senior aide to the president by leaking anonymously to newspapers the content of classified phone intercepts, where the unverified, unsubstantiated information can inflict politically fatal damage almost instantaneously.

The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 14, 2017

President Trump was roundly mocked among liberals for that tweet. But he is, in many ways, correct. These leaks are an enormous problem. And in a less polarized context, they would be recognized immediately for what they clearly are: an effort to manipulate public opinion for the sake of achieving a desired political outcome. It's weaponized spin.

If there's one thing that invasion of Iraq (Operation "Enduring Freedom") taught me .... which was consequential, expensive, involving 130,000 troops from the USA alone, not counting the contractors, coalition, and various wartime hangers-on, is that

THE UNITED STATES POPULATION CAN BE STAMPEDED INTO ANYTHING

ANYTHING

How it is that somewhere between 47-60% supported the invasion of Iraq? In what real world did the invasion of Iraq make any sense at all??? Didn't anyone bother to take a clear-eyed view of the so-called "threat" and notice that it was bogus? Didn't anyone notice the relentless torrent of propaganda, the rapidly- shifting and escalating narrative ... 9-11- terrorists -Curveball - aluminum tubes - yellowcake - bioweapons - chemical - nuclear- "east west north south somewhat of Baghdad" ... designed to keep everyone in a constant state of fear?

Has nobody noticed that the same techniques are being used to stampede us again now? That each half of our nation is being provoked into attacking the other? In what real world does that even make sense??

So let's look at the so-called Russian threat, because looking at all this in the rearview mirror, it will be demonstrated to be fake news, just like Iraq's fake WMD.

The so-called "Russian threat":
Does Russia have missiles on our border, like we have on theirs?
Is Russia constantly patrolling our coasts, like we do theirs?
Does Russia spend $600 billion on defense, like we do?
Is Russia bringing Mexico, Costa Rica, Cuba, and Brazil into the CSTO, like we've brought Slovakia, Slovenia, and Albania and Croatia into NATO?
Did Russia use the CTSO to destroy Germany, like we did with Iraq and Libya?
Did Russia create a refugee crisis?
Does Russia have 900+ military installations around the world?

What threat does Russia pose to us? Take a chill pill, and come back and tell us all ... finally ... what threat Russia poses to us. It's been a shapeless monster in the dark, used to scare people into destroying their own nation.

Right now, the only thing that is tacking this nation together is procedure. We have supposedly agreed on the rules of the game. Once you decide to overturn procedure, to openly cheer on a shadow government to get your way, you will be taking America back a realm where it hasn't been for about 150 years, if perhaps ever.

Because Trump has not disclosed his tax returns, this means we have no real idea how his businesses operate or where they get their money.

Second, I'm sure there are irregularities on the tax forms of a guy who used to be a junk bond trader, but it doesn't amount to treason and is unlikely to.

Neither would dealings with Russia. The US govt. has dealings with Russia. HRC may not have been the owner of the 20% uS uranium stake that was sold to Russia, but she did oversee the sale and made $3 million off of it. The problem there isn't just national security, it's also a conflict of interests, profiting off a deal she's overseeing. If you were to dig through Trump's past, I doubt you'd find anything of this caliber, so what's the point?

Other foreign powers, the most embarassing thing for Trump would probably be the extant of his Mexican dealings. But what's the end game of such an investigation?

Most of this stuff jsut seems like HRC power plays, so why would they go anywhere else? HRC has ties to ISIS, she took 25 million from the Saudis, and if you can't trust the Saudis, who can you trust?

I suspect we have to accept Trump because of our failure to support a good candidate when we had one.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:

Quote:Originally posted by second:

Because Trump has not disclosed his tax returns, this means we have no real idea how his businesses operate or where they get their money.

Second, I'm sure there are irregularities on the tax forms of a guy who used to be a junk bond trader, but it doesn't amount to treason and is unlikely to.

Neither would dealings with Russia. The US govt. has dealings with Russia. HRC may not have been the owner of the 20% uS uranium stake that was sold to Russia, but she did oversee the sale and made $3 million off of it. The problem there isn't just national security, it's also a conflict of interests, profiting off a deal she's overseeing. If you were to dig through Trump's past, I doubt you'd find anything of this caliber, so what's the point?

It always astonishes me that people will defend Trump for not publicizing his tax returns. And for continuing to own a worldwide business while in the White House. (Yes, he signed papers for his sons' convenience, but he still owns the business.) Have you not paid any attention to why what Trump is doing has not been done by past Presidents? Not by any of them, ever.

It is NO EXTRA WORK for him to reveal his taxes. With his tax returns and business deals kept secret, Trump is free to take bribes even while he is in office. This is NOT a freedom that President ought to have. If you think that is a wise way to run the USA, you are mistaken. We will find out how big a mistake you made over the next 8 years.

If you think it is moral for Trump to be running his own business, with all the conflicts between his secret business deals and being the U.S. President, you are looney. Again, we'll find out how crazy things get in the White House with all of Trump's new business freedom that no previous President had.

And, by the way, Spiro Agnew, Nixon's VP, resigned because of his income tax returns. He was taking bribes while he was VP and not reporting on his tax returns filed while he was VP. At least Trump's VP Pence won't be resigning because he cheated on his taxes. Can't say the same about Trump. I would bet that Trump keeps his 2016 thru 2024 tax returns completely secret. Past Presidents didn't do that, but Trump will.

Because Trump has not disclosed his tax returns, this means we have no real idea how his businesses operate or where they get their money.

Second, I'm sure there are irregularities on the tax forms of a guy who used to be a junk bond trader, but it doesn't amount to treason and is unlikely to.

Neither would dealings with Russia. The US govt. has dealings with Russia. HRC may not have been the owner of the 20% uS uranium stake that was sold to Russia, but she did oversee the sale and made $3 million off of it. The problem there isn't just national security, it's also a conflict of interests, profiting off a deal she's overseeing. If you were to dig through Trump's past, I doubt you'd find anything of this caliber, so what's the point?

Other foreign powers, the most embarassing thing for Trump would probably be the extant of his Mexican dealings. But what's the end game of such an investigation?

Most of this stuff jsut seems like HRC power plays, so why would they go anywhere else? HRC has ties to ISIS, she took 25 million from the Saudis, and if you can't trust the Saudis, who can you trust?

I suspect we have to accept Trump because of our failure to support a good candidate when we had one.

Wow, OK, lets let the investigations move forward a bit OK? Second, Hillary is gone. Can't hide there anymore. Anyway two wrongs don't make a right. Trump can't justify his actions by criticizing Hilary while doing worse. Last, word is, when the Director of the FBI testified in front of congress they were very, very troubled by what they heard. Marco Rubio vowed to follow through to the end.

I have to add. I have never seen so many Republicans disavow so much of what a Republican president has to say or is trying to do. That's very telling if you seek truth.
---------------------

Quote:Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Meh. Obama had a lot stronger foreign ties than Kenya. As did Hillary. Meh to Trump too, but he has the lowest number of favors owed by anyone elected in my lifetime. Russia? Not that worried.

Edit.

So some people in Ukraine, a nation that has a 40% ethnic Russian minority, has some people who are pro-Russia. Color me surprised. Also, is it a reason to panic that a neighboring country has supporters? Would we panic if Canada was pro-American, or even pro-Mexican?

Also, speaking of, we live in a country with a 20% ethnic Latino minority, which has basically always been there ever since we conquered northern Mexico. That population is probably pro-Mexican. Is that a threat to national security? In order for there to be a parallel, the US latino populations slant toward pro-Mexico would have to be a threat to the national security of Russia.

I just don't see it.

A lot of questions in what you post and speculation in the conclusions you come to. Since you have a distain for education you will never know what is what without someone telling you.

So, because I am educated I will help you out by telling you, you are wrong. Do what an educated person would do; research. I promise if you research your questions you will come to different conclusions.

Quote:It always astonishes me that people will defend Trump for not publicizing his tax returns. And for continuing to own a worldwide business while in the White House. (Yes, he signed papers for his sons' convenience, but he still owns the business.) Have you not paid any attention to why what Trump is doing has not been done by past Presidents? Not by any of them, ever.

I guess I didn't care. If you're going to cheat ... like, say, setting up a Foundation so you can collect massive "donations" from Gulf States, only to see those donations dry up when your Presidential campaign fails ... well then, I guess you're going to cheat.

I personally think that looking at the RESULTS of a President's policies ... not looking at their their tax returns or listening to the excuses, rationalizations, and lies that they tell us to get our buy-in ... is the best test of a conflict of interest.

Quote:It is NO EXTRA WORK for him to reveal his taxes. With his tax returns and business deals kept secret, Trump is free to take bribes even while he is in office.

How does that even make sense? If he releases his tax returns, he can still take bribes.

Quote:If you think it is moral for Trump to be running his own business, with all the

presumed

Quote:conflicts between his secret business deals and being the U.S. President, you are looney.

SECOND, please be prepared to do your own assessment of the President's commitment to our collective interests, not depending on some form-filling and checkbox-checking to do that for you. Despite what Obama has said, the wealth gap is greater than ever and we have destroyed even more nations and are mired in even more conflicts than ever before.

Quote:Again, we'll find out how crazy things get in the White House with all of Trump's new business freedom that no previous President had.

If THIS is the source of your angst, you have got to get a grip!

There are far more important problems with Trump than his tax records, or "Russia"!

1) Chill.
2) Snopes is not a source
* if you read a snopes entry, they tend to admit their false is mostly true.
3) I understand the issue very well.

A Canadian company owned the mining rights due to NAFTA, a Clinton deal. In the years leading up to the purchase and transfer, gave millions to the Clintons. Putin gave Bill a $500k speaking fee for announcing the Russian sale. The Sec. of State Hillary Ok'd the deal, and the administration did nothing. It looks like a very bad nat'l sec. issue. It' certainly looks worse than anything that HRC & co is about to uncover. They are very unlikely to find anything on tax forms. Sounds like a talking point.

Quote:It always astonishes me that people will defend Trump for not publicizing his tax returns.

Why would I defend Trump? I'm a democrat, and voted for Bernie. Trump's tax returns are unlikely to reveal national security threats. Real estate and a reality TV show?

Quote: And for continuing to own a worldwide business while in the White House.

Quote:Have you not paid any attention to why what Trump is doing has not been done by past Presidents? Not by any of them, ever.

Okay, he does things differently. It's not like we're squeaky clean. Our last three administrations all committed genocide.

Quote: It is NO EXTRA WORK for him to reveal his taxes.

Second, take a second and think about this.

Doesn't this whole thing sound exactly like the birther argument?

Obama's Birth Certificate: Document didn't exist. But so what? No one in 1961 goes to Kenya to have a chile a) there is no Kenya until 1963 b) no UK citizenship for Kenyans. It's worth nothing. Obviously an American would have a US baby.

GOP: But no Document!

Okay. Yes, no document, but Obama's not going to say that, because that would have just been used to impeach him on a technicality. So instead he says "Document!" even if he has to forge it.

It's a pointless argument. What are we going to do, install John McCain?

Trump's taxes.
Junk bonds and shady real estate deals. Anything can and will be used against him by the press and the Clintons to impeach him. Is he going to release documents just to help them? To install HRC? If he wanted to do that he could have thrown the election.

There's no secret Russian nuclear conspiracy. There are bad condo deals. And those, like a non-existent birth certificate, is potentially impeachable if the figures didn't add up. Which they probably don't. So what? Presidents commit 10 impeachable offenses a day before breakfast. Are we going to throw out an election and install someone who know sold US nuclear resources to Russia because of it?

Plus, the added civil war you automatically get for overthrowing democracy.

Seriously,

Read Sig's Deep State thread we're on. This the sort of thing. Sig is no kind of Trump supporter. She's an actual socialist. I'm not, I'm a centrist democrat. Obama and Hillary appall me. Trump probably will too, but I have to give him a chance to first.

Quote:a wise way to run the USA

Who has any idea? It's not like HRC, BHO or GWB knew a wise way to run the country, neither did Bill. Maybe The Donald and little Ivanka have a plan. I wait to see what it is before I condemn it. After the unending genocidal war, shredding of the constitution and environmental disaster* we've gone through, it's hard to see why continuing the status quo would help at all.

* I expect Trump to be worse on the environment, not better.

Then I expect any healthcare plan has to be better than what we have. I could be wrong on both accounts. What do I know? Or any of us. Maybe the EPA is actually part of the problem. Maybe we should side with Russia. It sounds better than killing another million Syrians. I don't know. Everyone in politics thinks they know the answer, but really no one has any idea.

I'm not ignorant. I worked in politics, I know a lot of things that don't work. So do a lot of people here. We can't presume to knwo what does work until we hit on it. I'm not afraid to try something different just because it's different. That's why I voted for the socialist.

Quote:If you think it is moral for Trump to be running his own business

Does it matter? So, our first businessman president is in business. Okay.
Our real wartime general president was feared to bring us a world war, instead, he brought us world peace, for a while.

Give the guy a chance. He's not us, he does things differently.

HRC is the same old GWB. BHO & HRC invaded 14 countries, killed a minimum of 4 million civilians by their own estimates. Better than that is... anyone.

Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki:
I was surprised that all the videos pointed to the deep state as the source of the (completely fabricated) anti-Russia hysteria and the ongoing attempted soft-coup against Trump.

All you SIG and your new friend are doing is showing yourselves to be conspiracy theorists, which means paranoid. Deep state = paranoia. When, err, if Trump falls it will be because this is America not Russia because we have the rule of law.

There's an ongoing everlasting argument as to whether the message of the show is more right wing or left wing, but one thing it is in the extreme is conspiracy theorist. Govt conspiracies. Corporate Conspiracies. Criminal conspiracies. Even the crew members conspire.

You have watched the show, haven't you?

ps. New friends? Click on someone's name to see how long they've been a member of this forum for.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Quote:Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:

Quote:And, by the way, Spiro Agnew, Nixon's VP, resigned because of his income tax returns.

Yes, of course, it's impeachment bait. Why would Trump take it?

The Founding Fathers wrote impeachment — originally a Roman political institution — into the constitution for the purpose of removing an official who had “rendered himself obnoxious,” in the words of Benjamin Franklin. Without impeachment, Franklin argued, citizens’ only recourse was assassination, which would leave the political official “not only deprived of his life but of the opportunity of vindicating his character.”

It would be best, Franklin argued, “to provide the Constitution for the regular punishment of the Executive when his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be justly accused.”

Referencing Ben Franklin, Trump might not be capable of "vindicating his character." Too bad for Trump. The country needs to see not only all Trump's past tax returns, but his future returns for 2016 to 2024. I bet a thousand dollar donation to fireflyfans.net that Trump won't release complete copies of any of his returns filed while he is President. He will keep secret or redact far more than just his Social Security number on the forms.

Impeachment does not exist for removing a president because someone lost an election.

First, take a look at how he was elected.

HRC stole the primary, which was predicted at 64:36 win for Sanders in virtually every online poll. Online polls had millions of participants, whereas media polls were cherrypicked from endless polls of hundred, to find the hundreds that would give them the answer they wanted. A near even Hillary victory. Near even elections motivatte partisans to vote for their side.

Assange detailed how Smartmatic flipped votes from what was actually a 64:36, to a near even split. That was the major fraud, not the superdelegates, which are the DNC's electoral college fudge factor to ensure they get the person they want. He suggested the FEC remove Smartmatic machines. They agreed but then didn't do so.

Assange went on to say that this would cause a drastic tilt to the general, to a similar degree. If you take Assange's numbers, it seems the election was actually 59:41 in favor of Trump.

That means I didn't vote for him, but nearly 3/5 voters did, and thus, he is President of the United States, that's how it works, and there's a very good reason for that.

Here's how it doesn't work: If Trump is removed on a technicality and someone that the people didn't want is installed instead, there will quite possibly be a revolution. Certainly there would be a complete discrediting of the democratic system.

Now, to accuse Trump of something, you actually have to excuse not impeaching previous presidents for much more serious crimes. The guy who just left waged war on over a dozen nations, including a large scale genocide against the Pashtun peoples of Southern Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan. Or why no one censured Hillary Clinton for her transfer of chemical weapons to Al Nusra when she was Secretary of State.

It would be easy to add hundred of crimes to both of these people, and to George W Bush and Bill Clinton. Trump really has yet to do much that is actually Trumpian, and this move to impeach started immediately after the election, without a focused reason, and was HRC's plan B that came out in the emails like so much.

I could rant endlessly on why i hate the Clintons* but I've done that enough here over the years. It's not the point. She lost the election. She's also why the DNC lost the election. That and the DNC's own desire to have her rather than someone who would win.

* Basically I think the Clintons are America's Nazi Party, but I think I've submitted endless stories on that, from Rwanda forward. But not-Clinton isn't really a reason to defend Trump, it's just there's no reason to attack him yet, nothing that compares on the scale of Bush or Obama. It's really a disgrace to do a birther movement or a Monica Lewinsky against people who are also genocide lunatics. We should, instead, as David Vitter and Ron Paul suggested in the '90s, impeach them for their genocidal policies.

This was coined by Mike Lofgren, translated from the Turkish, but was adopted by Bill Moyers, who used it to write a manifesto riffing off of Murray Rothbard's Anatomy of the State which is a spin on Max Weber's take.

I haven't read the manifesto yet, but here it is. I did some digging in to Moyers, who is Johnson's press secretary, CFR and Bilderberg, so solidly NWO, which is a concern.

If we use this term it does reference people back to Moyer's manifesto, so it matters what it says, and to Moyer, so there's that.

Subjective post DREAMTROVE. Of course it wasn't created to remove someone because they won. When impeachment is discussed it is with the understanding something egregious has or will occur. Many around the country believe this is inevitable.

Quote:Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Second,

Impeachment does not exist for removing a president because someone lost an election.

First, take a look at how he was elected.

HRC stole the primary, which was predicted at 64:36 win for Sanders in virtually every online poll. Online polls had millions of participants, whereas media polls were cherrypicked from endless polls of hundred, to find the hundreds that would give them the answer they wanted. A near even Hillary victory. Near even elections motivatte partisans to vote for their side.

Assange detailed how Smartmatic flipped votes from what was actually a 64:36, to a near even split. That was the major fraud, not the superdelegates, which are the DNC's electoral college fudge factor to ensure they get the person they want. He suggested the FEC remove Smartmatic machines. They agreed but then didn't do so.

Assange went on to say that this would cause a drastic tilt to the general, to a similar degree. If you take Assange's numbers, it seems the election was actually 59:41 in favor of Trump.

That means I didn't vote for him, but nearly 3/5 voters did, and thus, he is President of the United States, that's how it works, and there's a very good reason for that.

Here's how it doesn't work: If Trump is removed on a technicality and someone that the people didn't want is installed instead, there will quite possibly be a revolution. Certainly there would be a complete discrediting of the democratic system.

Now, to accuse Trump of something, you actually have to excuse not impeaching previous presidents for much more serious crimes. The guy who just left waged war on over a dozen nations, including a large scale genocide against the Pashtun peoples of Southern Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan. Or why no one censured Hillary Clinton for her transfer of chemical weapons to Al Nusra when she was Secretary of State.

It would be easy to add hundred of crimes to both of these people, and to George W Bush and Bill Clinton. Trump really has yet to do much that is actually Trumpian, and this move to impeach started immediately after the election, without a focused reason, and was HRC's plan B that came out in the emails like so much.

I could rant endlessly on why i hate the Clintons* but I've done that enough here over the years. It's not the point. She lost the election. She's also why the DNC lost the election. That and the DNC's own desire to have her rather than someone who would win.

* Basically I think the Clintons are America's Nazi Party, but I think I've submitted endless stories on that, from Rwanda forward. But not-Clinton isn't really a reason to defend Trump, it's just there's no reason to attack him yet, nothing that compares on the scale of Bush or Obama. It's really a disgrace to do a birther movement or a Monica Lewinsky against people who are also genocide lunatics. We should, instead, as David Vitter and Ron Paul suggested in the '90s, impeach them for their genocidal policies.

Quote:Originally posted by kpo:
Comey's manipulation of the election - going public with an inconsequential detail of the Hillary investigation a week before the election, while releasing nothing about the investigations into Trump's Russia ties throughout the entire election cycle - seems like the clearest example of 'deep state' undermining democracy.

BTW, THUGR is a perfect demonstration of what is wrong with die-hard ideologues. He's all for the "rule of law" unless it cramps his style. I could point to both rightwing (supporting GWB's various unconstitutional acts) and liberal (supporting Obama's various unconstitutional acts) dismissal of the "rule of law".

I guess what we're witnessing here is a liberal split between establishment liberals who are willing to abandon the concepts of law and democracy in order to install a liberal, even one that is roundly despised, at any cost; and a libertarian liberal which disagrees with the administration on a number of issues but is willing to try to work with them.

What I find ironic about the situation is that is that libertarians are fairly anti-establishment in general, but it's the establishment liberals who want to dismantle the system in order to get someone they approve of, albeit it nominally, into power. And do so at the risk of creating a police state.

Picture an America post-Schumer. Let's say that he gets his bill passed, which is unlikely, but he drives through a measure to establish a separate intelligence council, accountable to no one. He has a dozen dems who oppose him and an equal number of republicans whose support he might be able to get but not easily. What he really needs is a supermajority. So lets say some people can be bought, and then some have to be offered positions on this new intelligence panel which would have to be a better position than the one they currently hold in congress.

So, this secret panel is going to need a large budget to be able to give kickbacks for members of congress to even consider it, and lifetime election-free appointments.

Okay, so now the monster is created, I have to assume that he appoints HRC or some clintonista to head it.

Then the next step is to transfer JSOC to the panel, just as Obama transfered it to State for Hillary. It's easy to transfer all of the US military to JSOC, as Sy Hersh has shown.

Okay, now we have an unaccountable terrorist organization in charge of our military, but it still needs a budget.

So, time to resurrect Ron Paul's "End the FED." what a batter platform to completely redirect the budget from the elected govt. to this new shadowy institution than financial reform. Pass all of Trump's tax cuts, reduce real govt. budget to paying off the debt to the big banks, then call the big banks in to create a new financial black hole, which would issue currency, some publicly, and some secretly, through the same dark pools that the FED uses, into an account used by the CIA et al.

Now we have a central bank funded unaccountable international terrorist organization with the power to mint its own money, and instantly it is able to use that power to regular trade, which obviates congress.

Hey. At least it seems the left wing wackos are starting to admit that Trump isn't going anywhere. All they needed was a good cry, and yanno, burning down some cities and stuff.

If we are to believe that the Clintons and the DNC didn't' collude and steal the election from Bernie (which they did, and there is proof of it), then the only other truth would be that a majority of Democrats are assholes. (Which I'm not saying, because that's not what happened).

Wow. You actually support a politician? I didn't know anyone here did that. I always assume that everyone's playing devil's advocate all the time. I know I am.

Let's can this one. You're never going to convince me that the Clintons aren't racist genocidal bastards who set up Rwanda deliberately, and have done the same sort of thing now to at least a dozen other countries, and I have no idea what you think they are. So, I'll read an explaination that, but then I'll quit the topic.

Yes, that's Trump's wedding to Melania. And Ivanka and Chelsea are BFFs. I'm not celebrating in the streets. Well, okay, I can't make it to the streets, but you know what I mean.

Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

If we are to believe that the Clintons and the DNC didn't' collude and steal the election from Bernie (which they did, and there is proof of it), then the only other truth would be that a majority of Democrats are assholes. (Which I'm not saying, because that's not what happened).

Yes of course. Aside form wikileaks, and the polls themselves, and exit polls, there's also Wasserman-Schultz and co celebrating and bragging on tape about it, there's superdeleGate, and then the withholding of all resources from Sanders. And that is what lost them the election. Only 20% of Sanders voters cast votes for Hillary. When you get screwed, then make a compromise, then get promises of a shared platform until the day after the convention, when that whole shared platform is scuttled in favor of my way or the highway, suck it sanders, you lost, then yeah, that's not a way to make an alliance that's going to support you a few weeks later.

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:Originally posted by kpo:
Comey's manipulation of the election - going public with an inconsequential detail of the Hillary investigation a week before the election, while releasing nothing about the investigations into Trump's Russia ties throughout the entire election cycle - seems like the clearest example of 'deep state' undermining democracy.

Ideally, sure, we'd have independent pro american politicians, who were accountable to us, and beholden to no one else. But what we get is lots of ties, Europe, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and increasingly China. So, okay, maybe now Russia. I don't always disagree with those alliances. Alliances are good. Enemies are bad. Let's try to stop hating Mexicans and Muslims.

Thanks DT. It is so not what she meant. If you/anyone need it explained you're long gone. "We're here to give you the truth, not Trump's version of it" which has been proven to be full of holes.
This reminds me of when SIGNYM found a picture of Yanokovich "doing a Nazi salute!" and she went mental, "see! see!" And then we found pictures of about 8 popular, public politicians caught during speeches with their hands up like nazi salutes. It's junior high school tactics dude.

It's knowingly posting lies and therefore trolling. I saw what she said as well, and the context some tried attach to it here was, again a lie. Mika's family fled the Nazi's and her father was our National Security Advisor at one time sockpuppet. So explain yourself and tell us, who's the Nazi?

Quote:Originally posted by G:
Thanks DT. It is so not what she meant. If you/anyone need it explained you're long gone. "We're here to give you the truth, not Trump's version of it" which has been proven to be full of holes.
This reminds me of when SIGNYM found a picture of Yanokovich "doing a Nazi salute!" and she went mental, "see! see!" And then we found pictures of about 8 popular, public politicians caught during speeches with their hands up like nazi salutes. It's junior high school tactics dude.

Read it again G:

Quote:BRZEZINSKI: Well, I think that the dangerous, you know, edges here are that he is trying to undermine the media and trying to make up his own facts. And it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think. And that, that is our job.

What from this statement, exactly, is your job Mika?

Undermining the Media?
Make up your own facts?
Undermine messaging?
Controlling exactly what people think?

What is there to take out of context G? I don't even see anything in her entire statement that could be seen as a good thing she could have been referring to. If you read Scarborough's comment right before it, I don't see anything she was referencing from what he said that she could have been talking about either.

All FIREFLY graphics and photos on this page are copyright 2002-2012 Mutant Enemy, Inc., Universal Pictures, and 20th Century Fox.
All other graphics and texts are copyright of the contributors to this website.
This website IS NOT affiliated with the Official Firefly Site, Mutant Enemy, Inc., or 20th Century Fox.